nancylebov (nancylebov) wrote,

Reconsidering Purina

madfilkentist wrote very sensibly:
I've seen strong evidence that Amazon suppresses negative reviews if the product seller wants them suppressed. Most don't ask for censorship, so there are still a lot of hostile reviews, but I don't consider Amazon reviews a trustworthy measure.

It's also possible for a competitor or someone with a grudge to flood sites with libelous reviews under different names and IP addresses, so you can't tell much from that either. I don't worry until I see something from identifiable, somewhat trustworthy sources.

I poked around, and found some evidence that amazon sporadically censors negative reviews, though I haven't seen the strong evidence. has a very neutral wikipedia page-- nothing about whether it's apt to be used for completely false campaigns.

I checked the Better Business Bureau about Purina, and they just had a few complaints listed-- only two of them had details, and neither of them were about extremely bad pet food.

Metafilter had something about the salmonella recall, but nothing about serious current problems. Neither did Snopes.

I've googled on [purina maggots] and [kit and kaboodle complaints +purina] and turned up very little.

I find it bizarre that there might be an energetic anti-purina campaign which is limited to, but that seems like the best explanation so far.

This entry was posted at Comments are welcome here or there. comment count unavailable comments so far on that entry.

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded